Come on now. You needn't be so hard on yourself!
Oooh, you got me there - good one!
I thought we were talking about watching the Cooke play? Watching hockey has everything to so with this, Not if we "played hockey" or not. Also, I never suggested I'm "an expert" but I guess someone will put up suttons expert YT clip and fully derail this thread....Would you care to elaborate why I'm an expert? Or is that another thinly veiled attempt at a PA? Or do you want to try and stay on topic and maybe discuss the Cooke play and how it played out, not how we saw it and which qualifications help us watch hockey.
If you want to try and refute someone else's opinion (those including other posters here as well as hockey experts) and substitute yours as more relevant, then what insight you can bring to watching a hockey play absolutely plays a factor.
I have no idea what your hockey knowledge is, but I do know what the knowledge is of some of the experts I've seen comment on this, as well as my own experience, so I'm still willing to trust those over any 'evidence' you've been able to provide.
No he was enraged on the bench. Search out the video. He was stark raving after having been hit in the neck by a Sergei Gonchar point shot.. And your right, it's quite irrelevant in assessing his psychopathic traits, which, as the article points out, can be quite an advantage in life. This is just my personal feeling having followed his exploits through the years.
If you have evidence that supports your opinion, feel free to provide it. The hockey experts have already been mentioned in this thread with their take on it (not intentional) so you aren't going to convince anyone with just your personal feeling on Cooke's history without anything to support your side, and I'm not going to go look it up to help you.
Everyone's opinion is as valid as another's but not worth much to anyone else. Rupert and I (as well as others here) have formed our own opinion which happens to side with a fair number of hockey experts, so to try and say you're more correct is a losing battle without fleshing out your argument with expert opinion of your own or facts to show it was intentional.
I'm happy to debate it, but only if either of you can provide something to back up your opinion (and yes, the steps listed in describing a situation are also subjective so don't count as facts) otherwise you might as well be talking to yourselves.